Tiare Technology v. Kroger: Patron Service System Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Tiare Technology, Inc. asserted three patron service system patents — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — against retail giant The Kroger Co. in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached an agreed dismissal with prejudice after 495 days, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Agreed dismissal ends Kroger patron-service patent dispute
On December 23, 2022, Tiare Technology, Inc. filed suit against The Kroger Co. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00491), asserting infringement of three patents — US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 — each directed to patron service systems and methods. The case forms part of a broader filing by Tiare, with a related lead case (No. 2:22-cv-00490) remaining open at the time of this disposition.
On May 1, 2024, the court granted the parties’ agreed motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits, barring Tiare from re-filing the same infringement claims against Kroger. Kroger’s counterclaims — which typically include invalidity defences in patent cases — were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither side retains live claims.
The 495-day lifespan and each-party-bears-own-costs structure are consistent with a confidential settlement reached on commercially negotiated terms, though the public record is silent on any financial consideration exchanged. The maintenance of the lead case (2:22-cv-00490) as open suggests Tiare’s broader campaign targeting patron service system technology may be ongoing against other defendants.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 495 days
495 days in E.D. Texas — above the district’s median time-to-resolution for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed Rule 41(a)(2) order means
Rule 41(a)(2) agreed dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is a court-ordered final termination of the action. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, this order permanently bars Tiare from re-asserting the same infringement claims against Kroger based on these three patents. The ‘agreed’ nature means both parties jointly requested the order, typically indicating resolution outside of court.
Final — no re-filing permittedTiare cannot re-sue Kroger on these three patents
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes Tiare’s infringement claims against Kroger under US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2. Tiare accepted this finality, which strongly suggests the parties reached a licensing or settlement agreement — though the public record discloses no financial terms. The survival of the lead case (2:22-cv-00490) signals Tiare’s broader enforcement campaign continues.
Claims extinguished against KrogerKroger exits with prejudice — counterclaims also closed
Kroger’s counterclaims — likely including invalidity challenges to all three patents — were also dismissed with prejudice. This means Kroger cannot later pursue those specific invalidity arguments in this forum against Tiare. Each party bearing its own costs is commercially neutral and is a common feature of negotiated resolutions, suggesting neither side extracted a clear litigation victory.
Counterclaims also terminatedPatron service system patents remain live against other defendants
Because the dismissal is bilateral and the lead case remains open, Tiare’s three patron service system patents survive this action and retain enforceability against third parties. Retailers and service platform operators operating similar systems should note that the patents have not been invalidated and Tiare’s enforcement posture appears active. An FTO analysis against all three patent numbers is advisable for businesses in this space.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Tiare Technology, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kroger, Co. | Company | The Kroger Co. — major U.S. retail grocery chain facing patron service system IP claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christian J. Hurt | Attorney | Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Tiare Technology, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Atkins | Attorney | Counsel for Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP – VA | Law Firm | Representing Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ agreed framing verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of all claims and all counterclaims under Rule 41(a)(2). The bilateral prejudice structure is notable: it forecloses re-litigation by either party in this forum on these patents as between these parties. The express each-party-bears-own-costs clause, combined with the agreed nature of the motion, is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose terms are not disclosed in the public record.
US11195224B2, US10157414B2 & US8682729B2 — Patron Service System Patents
The three asserted patents — US11195224B2 (App. No. 16/217798), US10157414B2 (App. No. 15/820195), and US8682729B2 (App. No. 13/543193) — form a patent family spanning different filing generations, suggesting Tiare has built layered coverage around patron service system and method technology. The sequential application numbers indicate the portfolio was developed over multiple years, with US8682729B2 representing the earliest generation. Together they cover systems and methods for managing customer or patron interactions, likely in retail and service environments.
For a retailer of Kroger’s scale, patron service systems — encompassing digital queue management, self-service checkout, loyalty interactions, or in-aisle assistance platforms — represent core operational infrastructure. A three-patent family with multiple filing generations creates overlapping claim coverage that is difficult to design around without a thorough FTO analysis. The fact that Tiare filed against both Kroger (2:22-cv-00491) and at least one other defendant (lead case 2:22-cv-00490) simultaneously signals a coordinated enforcement strategy targeting the retail sector.
Should your team run an FTO against US11195224B2, US10157414B2 & US8682729B2?
Any business deploying patron service systems — including self-checkout platforms, digital queue management, loyalty or concierge services, or in-store customer interaction technology — should assess exposure against Tiare’s three-patent portfolio. The fact that Kroger’s invalidity counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice means no court has publicly ruled these patents invalid, leaving them fully enforceable. Retailers, hospitality operators, and service platform vendors are the most directly at-risk categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim scope across all three patent numbers simultaneously, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag design-around opportunities. With Tiare’s lead case still active, the window for proactive clearance analysis is open — waiting for a demand letter is a higher-cost approach. Eureka’s citation and family analysis tools also help identify whether continuation applications may extend coverage further.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11195224B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patron service system patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving patron service system or retail technology patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas follow recognisable enforcement patterns worth benchmarking.
What this case signals for the retail patron service IP landscape
Three patron service patents, a major U.S. retailer, and an agreed exit — the pattern here carries clear signals for the sector.
Agreed dismissal with own-costs structure typically signals settlement
When both sides agree to dismiss with prejudice and bear their own costs, the most commercially rational explanation is a confidential licensing or settlement arrangement. Tiare’s patents were not invalidated here, and Kroger avoided a trial verdict — suggesting both parties found negotiated terms preferable to continued litigation risk.
Lead case still open — Tiare’s enforcement campaign is not over
The court expressly maintained lead case No. 2:22-cv-00490 as open. This architecture is consistent with a multi-defendant patent campaign. Other retailers or service operators that deploy comparable patron service system technology should treat this case as an active signal, not a precedent that the patents are exhausted or invalidated.
Tiare v Kroger — key questions answered
Tiare Technology asserted three patents: US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2. All three are directed to patron service systems and methods. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on December 23, 2022.
The dismissal was agreed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Dismissal with prejudice means all claims and counterclaims are permanently terminated, barring re-filing. The agreed structure and each-party-bears-own-costs provision are consistent with a confidential settlement, though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
No. The patents were not adjudicated invalid. Kroger’s invalidity counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning no court has ruled the patents invalid. US11195224B2, US10157414B2, and US8682729B2 remain enforceable against third parties. Tiare’s lead case (2:22-cv-00490) also remains open.
The court expressly maintained lead case No. 2:22-cv-00490 as open while closing the Kroger member case. This suggests Tiare’s enforcement campaign is ongoing against at least one other defendant. The patron service system patents asserted in this case may therefore be actively litigated in parallel proceedings.
The agreed order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is a commercially neutral outcome — neither party was awarded fee recovery. In patent cases, fee awards under 35 U.S.C. § 285 require an ‘exceptional case’ finding, which is avoided entirely by an agreed dismissal. This structure is common in confidential settlements.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.